You are assuming there is nothing supernatural about God’s ability to know the future like history. The point I’m making is that God knows the future like history without upsetting the nature and essence of time and space and free will. You are assuming He cannot know the future like history without destroying time and space and free will.


Again, the quotes I posted, the same ones Rosangela posted, make it very clear God knows the future like history. She could not have used language more clear. You seem to think we can overlook the obvious meaning of the words she used and interpret them to agree with your understanding of risk.


I responded to the idea that since the SOP uses the words “risk” and “peril” we are required to assume the Messianic prophecies must be interpreted to mean neither the Father nor the Son were certain Jesus would succeed. I disagree with this view. Please post passages from the Bible which clearly represent the Father and/or the Son expressing doubt about it. Also, please do not cite unrelated passages from which you glean a principle you think applies to the request at hand.


I have never thought you were saying knowing the future like history forces people to make certain decisions. Just because God knows the future like history it does not mean the future is fixed in the sense people are not free to choose as they please. Since people are free to choose as they please there is no problem. It doesn’t matter that God already knows which choices they will make. The idea that this means the future is fixed and cannot play out differently is a non-issue. It means nothing.

You didn’t answer my question. The language employed in the quotes I posted is too clear to misunderstand. It doesn’t require interpretation. It speaks for itself. It leaves no doubt as to what she said about it. Saying we cannot take her at her word because you believe she taught something altogether different elsewhere is ignoring my question.


Again, her words are too plain to misunderstand.


You are trying to understand a “mystery” that God hasn’t clearly explained yet. He knew angels and humans would sin and rebel and die in the lake of fire and He chose to create them anyhow.


There is absolutely no way angels and humans would have sinned and rebelled if God had chosen not to create them. As it is, according to your view, God knew there was a possibility they would sin and rebel and He chose to risk it.


Your view portrays God hoping angels and humans wouldn’t sin and rebel and die in the lake of fire. It assumes He had no idea which angels and humans would sin and rebel and which ones would not. Such a God is impotent. My view portrays God making decisions based on fact. He didn’t do something hoping it wouldn’t go south. Taking such risks is reckless and cruel.


You are basing your view on the SOP and not on the Bible. Please use the Bible to support your view. Where in the Bible does it say God wasn’t absolutely certain Jesus would succeed? Again, please do not cite unrelated passages from which you glean principles you think prove we must interpret the Messianic prophecies to mean God was uncertain Jesus would succeed.

No, I'm not making this assumption.



This has never been the issue. No one is suggesting this. I'm pointed this out many times. I don't know why you keep repeating this.



No, I'm not assuming this. I've been pointing out this isn't an issue. There's no need for me to assume what you're suggesting. It's not an issue.



There are many quotes that make it clear the future is not fixed.



You're just repeating yourself, so I'll repeat what I wrote:



You didn't address any of this. You just ignored it.



My understanding of risk? Like I have a personal understanding of the word? You don't know what risk is?

What about "All heaven is imperiled." Do I have a private understanding of what "imperiled" means as well?

What about the moral issues involved in assuming that God set into motion a course of events that would have made sin inevitable? This would contradict the idea that sin is a mystery that can't be explained, or that God was in no way responsible for it.

What about the concept of free will that Adventists have traditionally held? I realize you conceive of "free will" as meaning that we're free to do what we please, but that's a restricted view, and not what Adventists usually mean by the term. It usually means able to choose from 2+ options.



Ok, you disagree.



I already addressed this in the previous post I alluded to.



Good! Given this to be the case, I don't see why you keep making this point that because God knows the future it doesn't impact the choices they can make. This isn't an issue. You just said I'm not claiming this. So why keep repeating this?



I've addressed this point several times, just recently. I've explained that if you hold to this definition of "free will," the one that is not libertarian, the one that is not what Adventists ordinarily hold to, there isn't a logical contradiction.



There is no problem if:

a.One doesn't care that one is not able to impact the future.
b.One doesn't care that one is merely living out a future which has already been determined.
c.One doesn't mind that God chose a future that would inevitably have sin.



On the contrary! This *is* the issue!



It means everything.

You ask loaded questions, which force your readers to take in assumptions which you hold, and if they don't, then you accuse them of not answering your questions. This isn't fair. I don't have to hold to your assumptions. I don't need to answer the "Did you stop beating your wife" questions "yes" or "no."

What I'm doing is trying to see what you're really wanting to know, and addressing this, and I went into quite a bit of detail to do so.



So is the language in 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7a. You're ignoring the clear language of 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7a to lay hold of 7b.

This sort of thing happens all the time in studying subjects in inspiration. For example, the State of the Dead in Scripture, or the human nature of Christ in the SOP. You can't just see one passage, or group of passages, which looks to be saying a certain thing, and then stop. You have to consider all the evidence to come to a right conclusion.



So does, "Christ risked all. For our benefit, all heaven was imperiled." Anyone can understand this.



This is really unfair. I've never written things like "sin does not mean what it normally means" or such, in order to hold to a viewpoint I've held. You've written these things repeatedly.

I'm not accusing you of "not taking her at her word." You're resorting to what is essentially name calling rather than considering the arguments I'm presenting.

I'm not accusing you of the things you're accusing me of, and you're far more open to such accusations than I am.

Please stick to the issues and stop with the accusations.



This is just ignoring what I'm saying.



I'm pointing out that if your viewpoint were correct, there would be no mystery. Therefore the viewpoint must be incorrect, because why sin came about *is* a mystery. If God set into motion a course of events to make sin inevitable, there's no mystery there.



Why would He do that? Why would God prefer sin and death to obedience and life?



Creating creatures that can love and be loved necessitates risk.



Love entails risk.



When one loves, one hopes the love is returned. But love entails risk. It might not be.



This is a personal idea you hold, for personal reasons, which I don't know what they are. Maybe you feel things must be controlled in order to have power. I don't know. But this is just a personal opinion, and one I disagree with. One does not need to control things to have power.



Love entails risk. God created beings with the possibility that they might choose not to love in return. I don't understand why you would think this is a worse idea than the idea that God purposely created a world in which sin would be inevitable. Would you do such a thing? You would choose to have a child, wouldn't you, even though the child might choose to be evil. Why would you think ill of God for doing the same thing? But would you have a child if you *knew* it would a Hitler or Stalin? Assuming no, why do you think God would do something equivalent? Why do you find fault with God for taking actions that you yourself wouldn't take, while not finding fault with Him for actions you would take?



I've said many times I'm happy to discuss this subject purely on the basis of Scripture. Just start a thread, and we'll have this discussion on the basis of Scripture alone.



Where in the Bible does it say God was absolutely certain Jesus would succeed? Please don't cite any passages which require thinking or reasoning. I'm looking for something which says, "God was absolutely certain God would succeed."

Do you think my view (God knows the future like history) mean the future is fixed, is single-threaded? If so, please explain why?


She also could have said, Neither the Father nor the Son were absolutely certain Jesus would succeed. But she never said such a thing. That’s a significant point.


It seems to me you are overlooking the obvious meaning of the words she used. There is absolutely nothing unclear about the words she used. I’m referring to the passages Rosangela and I posted.

If you are saying her use of the words “risk” and “peril” must be interpreted to mean neither the Father nor the Son were absolutely certain angels and humans would sin and rebel, then, yes, I believe you are assuming too much. The same thing is true regarding the Father and the Son and whether or not they knew Jesus would succeed.


Was that what you wanted me to respond to? If so, it doesn’t address my question. You still haven’t posted passages from the Bible that plainly portray the Father or the Son expressing doubt about it.


Again, I don’t think you understand the significance of my view. The future is not fixed or single-threaded. We are free to choose as we please. The future is totally dependent upon the choices we make and the way God manages the consequences. True, God knows the choices we will make and the way He will manage the consequences, but none of this means we are not free to choose as we please or that we cannot impact the future. Everything we think, say, and do impacts today and the future. The idea that we are not free if we cannot make choices that would result in outcomes different than what God knows assumes He cannot know the future like history (we both agree knowing history does not limit or eliminate free will, nor does it mean that they cannot make choices that would result in outcomes different than what history records).

I realize you believe we must interpret her words to mean neither the Father nor the Son knew with absolutely certainty angels and humans would sin and rebel and die in the lake of fire, nor did they know Jesus would definitely succeed. You seem to think we must take unclear, ambiguous statements and force them to mean we cannot take clear, unambiguous statements at face value. Shouldn’t it be the other way around; for example, shouldn’t we assume the unclear, ambiguous statements agree with the clear, unambiguous ones?


Why Lucifer sinned and rebelled is a mystery. How he sinned and rebelled is not. Nothing I’ve said contradicts these facts.


He didn’t prefer it. Why He chose to hasn’t been perfectly explained yet. He probably won’t explain it perfectly until after we’re in heaven.


When someone possesses the kind of powers God does it is imperative that He be in control. Love is not blind or ignorant. Agape love is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. It does not take risks. It doesn’t need to. Again, nothing you’ve said proves neither the Father nor the Son were uncertain what Lucifer, Adam, and Jesus would do.


You are assuming God and I are equals. You cannot understand God by understanding me or any other human. You are assuming God chose to create angels and humans hoping they wouldn’t sin and rebel and die in the lake of fire all the while knowing there was a chance they would.


Why a new thread? I’ve been requesting it from the beginning of this thread. Besides, I believe you are misapplying what she wrote about risk and peril and arriving at unwarranted conclusions. Nothing she wrote can be construed to mean the Father and the Son were uncertain Jesus would succeed.


You didn’t answer my question. To answer your question, Jesus said, “… the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.” Jesus also said:

John
3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Do you agree with me that Jesus is stating in no uncertain terms He will definitely succeed? Or, do you think these words obviously imply the possibility of failure?

Of course! You believe God sees the future like history, like a re-run. These things are fixed, single-threaded.



No, this isn't significant, just like other things she didn't say aren't significant. You ignored what I wrote again.



"Risk"? "Imperiled"? No, I'm not overlooking the obvious meaning of these words.



That's not what I was talking about. Look at what you're responding to. Anyway, what words do you think I'm overlooking?



I'm saying "risk" should be understood to mean what it means, which any dictionary will tell you (i.e. "chance of loss") And the same for "imperiled."



What thing?



I said I responded to this in a previous post, and asked you to respond to that post, and to please not repeat the question as if I had not addressed that. These are two things:

1.Respond to the previous post.
2.Don't repeat the question as if I hadn't answered this.

Instead of doing the two things I asked, you:

1.Did not respond to the previous post.
2.Repeated the question.

I repeat my requests.



I've always understood it. For years I've understood it.



I agree. This is why your view is incorrect. It logically contradicts this idea. I don't think you understand the significance of the view you hold!



This is the compatibilistic idea of free will. Single-threaded. Fixed. I explained this.



This is multi-threaded, open.



This is single-threaded, fixed.



Also single-threaded, fixed.



Multi-threaded. Clearly if God can write out in a book what you are going to do, and that's certain to happen, nothing you can do can change that. To say you can impact the future, given God can write out what you will do in a book things you are certain to do, is not reasoning from cause to effect. If what you are going to do is already written down in a book, then you can't impact what's already been written down. That is, if you can't make what's written down be incorrect, then you can't impact the future. These things have a one to one correspondence.



This is true, and why it cannot be seen like history, and written down in a book as something certain to happen.



Of course, because these are mutually exclusive! On part of the sentence is the future-is-single-threaded idea, and on the other part of the sentence it's the future-is-multi-threaded. Which is it? It can't be both.



It depends upon how you define free will. It's not that the knowledge limits anything, but there's possibly a logical contradiction.



This doesn't make sense. What's past is prologue.

T: No, MM, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that in regards to the fall, there are passage of two types; those which look to be contingent, and those which look to not be. In addition to these passages, of which there are both types, there are passages on other subjects, besides the fall, which are clearly not contingent. For example:

1.Christ could have come before now.
2.Christ risked all.
3.All heaven was imperiled for our redemption.

In addition, there are other passages dealing with the fall which make clear that it was contingent. For example:

5.God was in no way responsible for the entrance of sin.
6.Sin is a mystery which cannot be explained.

We'll add a 7th category, which has the too types:

7.Passages discussing the fall:
a.Passages which sound contingent.
b.Passages which don't sound contingent.

It looks to me that you are trying to lay hold of 7.b., while ignoring, or setting aside, 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7a.

I've also pointed out that there are moral problems involved with your view, which I don't think you've addressed. At least, if you have, I don't remember what you said. For example, if God set into motion a course of events in which sin was certain to occur, then He would be responsible for the entrance of sin. This is a moral problem. A good being wouldn't do something to make sin inevitable, with all the misery and suffering that results.

M:What is it about the language employed in the passages I posted that leads you to think they could be taken to mean the Father and the Son were uncertain Adam would fall or not?

T: I'm not considering only those passages. That's not how one studies things. For example, in Ex. 4 it says: “And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him(Moses), and sought to kill him. (Ex. 4:24) Do we really think that God was seeking to kill Moses? There are many examples of this in Scripture, where if we just took one bit of Scripture, it appears to say something which we realize it's not really saying when we compare Scripture with Scripture. The same thing applies to the SOP. For example, to pick an example that will resonate with you, there are places in the SOP where it may appear to be saying that Christ had a sinless human nature, the nature of Adam before the fall. But if we consider all she wrote on the subject, we can understand these statements in a larger context.

M:You didn’t answer my question.
T: You ask loaded questions, which force your readers to take in assumptions which you hold, and if they don't, then you accuse them of not answering your questions. This isn't fair. I don't have to hold to your assumptions. I don't need to answer the "Did you stop beating your wife" questions "yes" or "no." What I'm doing is trying to see what you're really wanting to know, and addressing this, and I went into quite a bit of detail to do so.

M: The language employed in the quotes I posted is too clear to misunderstand.

T: So is the language in 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7a. You're ignoring the clear language of 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7a to lay hold of 7b. This sort of thing happens all the time in studying subjects in inspiration. For example, the State of the Dead in Scripture, or the human nature of Christ in the SOP. You can't just see one passage, or group of passages, which looks to be saying a certain thing, and then stop. You have to consider all the evidence to come to a right conclusion.

M: It doesn’t require interpretation. It speaks for itself.

T: So does, "Christ risked all. For our benefit, all heaven was imperiled." Anyone can understand this.

M: It leaves no doubt as to what she said about it. Saying we cannot take her at her word because you believe she taught something altogether different elsewhere is ignoring my question.

T: This is really unfair. I've never written things like "sin does not mean what it normally means" or such, in order to hold to a viewpoint I've held. You've written these things repeatedly. I'm not accusing you of "not taking her at her word." You're resorting to what is essentially name calling rather than considering the arguments I'm presenting. I'm not accusing you of the things you're accusing me of, and you're far more open to such accusations than I am. Please stick to the issues and stop with the accusations.

M: Or, do you agree with me the passages clearly say the Father and the Son were absolutely certain Adam would fall?

T: That would contradict what she said elsewhere. You appear to be doing what I just said. You are laying hold of 7a, but ignoring 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7b. It's like the nature of Christ argument.

M:Again, her words are too plain to misunderstand.

T: This is just ignoring what I'm saying.

M:I realize you believe we must interpret her words to mean neither the Father nor the Son knew with absolutely certainty angels and humans would sin and rebel and die in the lake of fire, nor did they know Jesus would definitely succeed.[/quote]

If "Christ risked all," then Christ could not have been certain that He wasn't risking anything, could He? Under your view, what sense does it make to say "heaven was imperiled."? That doesn't make any sense under you view. If God was always certain that heaven was not in any danger, nor ever would be in any danger, then it could not be right to say it was "imperiled."

What does "all heaven was imperiled" mean to you? What could have happened to have caused heaven to be lost?



What? "Christ risked all." "All heaven was imperiled" is "unclear," "ambiguous"? No! It's not! Not at all! Anyone can read these statements and understand what they mean.



Yes!!! That's what I've been saying!! 7b should not be made to throw out 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7a.



Yes! Of course! 7b should agree with 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7a.

But that's not the mystery!



Note the following:
1.It is impossible to explain the origin of sin so as to give a reason for its existence.
2.Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin.
3. Could excuse for it be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin.

Your view falls short on each of these. If God set into motion events that made sin inevitable, then it's simplicity itself to give a reason for the existence of sin. Similarly if God made sin inevitable, it would be an error to say that God was "in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin." Also cause, under your view, can be shown for the existence of sin: God set into motion a course of events which made sin inevitable.

You've said yourself that sin was inevitable. I don't understand how you don't perceive this idea to be logically contradictory to the quote above. If no reason can be given for the existence of sin, it certainly can't be the case that it was inevitable, and if *God* made sin certain to happen, it certainly can't be said that God was "in no wise responsible" for it.



These facts aren't the problem, though.



Clearly He did (under your view). If He didn't, He would have created some other being, instead of Lucifer, that wasn't certain to sin.



Sure it has.



It's already been explained. God created beings to love and be loved. Love entails risk.



God ceded control when He created sentient beings. It is precisely because God is NOT in control that this world is as it is.



"Remember Christ risked all." Since "Christ is agape," here was have as clear a contradiction as is possible.



Sure it does. Surely you've loved someone. Wasn't there risk involved? Anytime we choose to love someone, that person may choose not to love us back.



If one doesn't use reason or logic.



No! To the contrary! I'm assuming God is better than you are. That's why having Him act worse than you would is not reasonable.



Yes, but I can assume He is more moral than you are. When you have Him acting less morally than you would, that's a problem.



I'm *concluding* this, not "assuming" it.



So you can make up your mind! Do you want to discuss things without the SOP or not? If yes, then start a new thread. If no, then don't find fault with me for use the SOP to prove my point.



I'm sure you've quoted far, far more from the SOP than from Scripture. Probably over 10 times more. This isn't being consistent.



You're constrained to do so to hold your view.



Sure it can! Anyone understand what "Christ risked all" means. Similarly "all heaven was imperiled."

Simply logic tells us that if:

1.God was certain Christ would succeed. AND
2.Every thing that God is certain will happen does indeed happen THEN
3.Christ risked nothing (remember Christ was as omniscient as God).



Yes I did! I answered it in detail, and asked you to respond to the post where I did so.



Ok. But I didn't ask this. I asked:



You didn't produce such a statement.



I think you didn't produce the statement I asked for.

It can also mean facing real danger, which, indeed, Jesus faced real dangers. However, you haven’t addressed my main concern, namely, do you believe her use of “risk” and “peril” means we must interpret everything else she wrote to agree with your view (i.e. neither the Father nor the Son were absolutely certain Lucifer, Adam, and Jesus would succeed or fail)?


Was that what you wanted me to respond to? If not, please repeat what it is you want me to respond to as it relates to the dreaded question (i.e. where in the Bible does it plainly portray the Father or the Son expressing doubt about it).


Yes it can be both. We’re talking about God. He possesses the supernatural ability to know the future like history without upsetting how things are and how things play out in real time. You wrote:


You keep referring to God in terms of how things “will” play out rather than in terms of how things have played out. God knowing the future like history has no more effect on how things play out in real time than someone reading a history book effects how things played out in real time. Again, we’re talking about God, so the rules are different. That is, God can know the future like history without upsetting the natural order of things. The choices people make in real time are the result of unlimited, unrestricted free will. The fact God knows the future like history in no way means they were unable or incapable of making decisions resulting in outcomes different than what God saw. Why? Because from God’s point of view, which includes 20/20 hindsight, He knows the facts after the fact, like watching a rerun. Thus, it is no different than someone reading a history book. “I AM means an eternal presence; the past, present, and future are alike with God. He sees the most remote events of past history and the far distant future with as clear a vision as we do those things which are transpiring daily.” {TMK 12.2} “He sees the end from the beginning. He knows all things. Past, present and future are all clear to Him.” {MR926 34.1}


You are taking two unrelated points and arriving at a conclusion that isn’t plainly stated in the Bible or the SOP. The fact you cannot find a quote that clearly portrays the Father or the Son expressing uncertainty about it speaks eloquently against your view. Regarding doubt, Ellen wrote:


both the Father and the Son believed, without a doubt, that Jesus would succeed. We read:


By the way, do you agree with me that unfallen beings were absolutely certain Jesus would succeed? If not, please post passages that portray them fretting or fearing Jesus would fail. Nowhere in the Bible or the SOP does it portray them feeling at risk or imperiled. Why do you think they never felt at risk or imperiled? Why do you think they felt perfectly safe and secure?